§ MR. BRODRICKI have to ask the House to allow me to make a personal explanation in reference to a statement which has appeared in the public press in regard to a reply I gave to the hon. Member for North-West Lanark. The hon. Member, speaking in Scotland, alluded to an answer I had made in the House of Commons to a question from himself, and in commenting upon it said my statement was false, and that it was a very serious matter for a Member of the House of Commons to find that a truthful answer was not given to a plain question by a 775 Minister. The question put to me was† whether I would publish a particular report sent by General Colvile to the Commander-in-Chief respecting the battle of Paardeberg. I replied to that that reports were furnished by officers commanding divisions only to the senior officer present, and did not accompany his despatch to the Commander-in-Chief. I said in consequence General Colvile's despatch or report was sent to General Kelly-Kenny, who was in immediate command, and was not sent to Lord Roberts. Search had been made in Lord Roberts's papers and the report could not at the moment be traced. Since the hon. Member used the expressions in Scotland to which I have referred I asked Lord Roberts to make further search among his papers, and this morning the report was found in a box among a good many other papers of a similar kind, where they had been placed after an abstract of the recommendations in them had been made for the Commander-in-Chief's use. I need hardly say how much I regret to have been the channel of giving any inaccurate information to the House, but the House will realise that, amid so many hundreds and thousands of papers passing officially at a period of active service and removed on many occasions, it is not always possible to find a particular paper of that kind at the moment when it may he required. Although it is not the rule to lay papers of this description on the Table, I have not the slightest objection, as it is asked for, to lay this paper on the Table. But I ought to add, to avoid any misapprehension, that the report in question has reference to the battle of Paardeberg, and not in any way to incidents in the subsequent career of General Colvile which formed the subject of debate a few nights ago.
§ MR. DOUGLAS (Lanarkshire, N. W.)After the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made, perhaps the House will bear with me for a few minutes while I make a personal explanation. I think it is evident from the tone of the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks that he has somewhat misunderstood what I said. He seemed to have supposed that some observations of mine were a reflection on his private character. My observations
† See preceding volume, page 60.776 were only intended to apply to the answers themselves and their substance. I exceedingly regret that, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that no such intention or thought was in my mind, and such an intention I wish to disclaim as publicly as I made the statement in question. But perhaps the House will consider with me that the state of, matters appeared somewhat anomalous and serious. A question was asked whether a despatch had been addressed to Lord Roberts or not, and it was said in reply it had not been so addressed. In the course of the debate on General Colvile's case I communicated to the right hon. Gentleman across the floor of the House that the despatch was in existence, that it had been addressed to Lord Roberts, and I offered the right hon. Gentleman a copy of it. Three days afterwards the hon. Member for the Stroud Division asked the right hon. Gentleman whether that was the case or not, and the statement was contradicted without any reference to what had passed during the debate. I thought this a matter of so much importance that, being questioned in my I constituency, I could not allow it to rest where it was. I exceedingly regret that I should have been betrayed into any statement that could be supposed to be a reflection on the personal honour of the right hon. Gentleman, and hope he null regard the explanation I have made as satisfactory as the statement he has made is to me.